do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2495/96 by Jesús CABEZÓN ALONSO , Juan COLINO SALAMANCA to the Commission. Cull of cattle affected by BSE
Date: 1996-09-25
Institutions: CABEZON ALONSO, COLINO SALAMANCA, European Parliament
Subjects: EU financing, United Kingdom, animal disease, cattle, epidemic, slaughter of animals, slaughter premium













EUR-Lex - 91996E2495 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2495

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2495/96 by Jesús CABEZÓN ALONSO , Juan COLINO SALAMANCA to the Commission. Cull of cattle affected by BSE  


Official Journal C 096 , 24/03/1997 P. 0009 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2495/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) and Juan Colino Salamanca (PSE) to the Commission (25 September 1996)Subject: Cull of cattle affected by BSESince bovine spongiform encephalopathy was discovered in 1986, how many head of beef cattle have been culled in the United Kingdom because of the disease? How much has been paid to stockbreeders in the United Kingdom in compensation for the compulsory cull of their cattle?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (22 November 1996)From the beginning of the epidemic until 6 September 1996 194 837 suspected bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) cases were slaughtered in the United Kingdom and 164 796 of these suspected cases have been confirmed. From 1988 until 1995 the compensation to the farmers for suspect BSE cases amounts to £ 95.5 million (114 MECU) and the forecast for 1995/1996 expenditures amounts to £ 9.6 million (11.5 MECU). There is no Community contribution to the cost of this measure.From May 1996 until 2 October 1996, in the over thirty months scheme whereby cattle over the age of 30 months are destroyed and not used for human consumption, there have been approximately 550 000 cattle culled and the total compensation paid or to be paid for these animals is approximately £ 250 million (300 MECU). An additional national premium is paid to pure beef farmers amounting to £ 32 million (38 MECU). TheCommunity financial contribution has been set at 70% of the standard compensation for the animals in the scheme through Commission Regulation (EC) No. 716/96 of 19 April 1996 adopting exceptional support measures for the beef market in the United Kingdom ((OJ L 99, 20.4.1996. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2486/96 by José VALVERDE LÓPEZ to the Commission. Measures to popularize the use of the European Union flag
Date: 1996-09-25
Institutions: European Parliament, VALVERDE LOPEZ
Subjects: EU national, EU publication, European Union, European symbol, Structural Funds, advertising, communications policy, dissemination of EU information, promotion of the European idea, public awareness campaign













EUR-Lex - 91996E2486 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2486

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2486/96 by José VALVERDE LÓPEZ to the Commission. Measures to popularize the use of the European Union flag  


Official Journal C 072 , 07/03/1997 P. 0046 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2486/96 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (25 September 1996)Subject: Measures to popularize the use of the European Union flagIn the media-dominated world in which we live, the visual impact of symbols is crucial. Promoting wider use of the Union flag could help make Europe more familiar to the public in its everyday life.What steps does the Commission think could be taken to ensure that the Union flag is used more widely and more prominently?Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (21 November 1996)The Commission shares the Honourable Member's conviction that more widespread use of the European flag would help to familiarize the public with European dimension in their everyday lives.When the Community institutions adopted the European emblem in 1986, they introduced measures concerning its use. The use of the Community flag in the Member States is not regulated by Community law.It should be noted that under Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 on the Structural Funds, ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. )) publicizing Community assistance is compulsory. Commission Decision 94/342/EC of 31 May 1994 concerning information and publicity measures to be carried out by the Member States concerning assistance from the Structural Funds and the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance, ((OJ L 152, 18.6.1994. )) sets out the following practical rules: recipients of Community aid shall acknowledge this aid publicity by using the European emblem on billboards at sites, on publications, advertisements, etc. with an appropriate phrase (e.g. 'This project is part-financed by the European Union'). Similarly in joint ventures the Commission insists that the European emblem is displayed prominently, in association with the logo or emblem of the other participants in the ventures.Applications from outsiders to use the European emblem for bona fide European projects are given sympathetic consideration. The Commission welcomes the use of the European emblem by third parties. Requests are however carefully considered to prevent misuse.Information outlets or relays are also encouraged to use the European emblem where possible. In its information and communication activities, the Commission itself always seeks to display prominently the European emblem. The Commission has requested all its services to use the European emblem on their publications, in advertisements, at exhibitions, in promotions and for actions and campaigns.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2488/96 by José VALVERDE LÓPEZ to the Commission. Annual reports on the effectiveness of policies
Date: 1996-09-25
Institutions: European Parliament, VALVERDE LOPEZ
Subjects: EU programme, EU publication, activity report, application of EU law, government policy, national implementing measure, parliamentary scrutiny, project evaluation













EUR-Lex - 91996E2488 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2488

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2488/96 by José VALVERDE LÓPEZ to the Commission. Annual reports on the effectiveness of policies  


Official Journal C 072 , 07/03/1997 P. 0047 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2488/96 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (25 September 1996)Subject: Annual reports on the effectiveness of policiesIt would be helpful if, in addition to the formal reports on the transposition into national law of Community legislation, the Commission drew up annual reports on the effectiveness of its policies. These reports would be extremely helpful for facilitating parliamentary scrutiny.What plans does the Commission have in this area in the near future?Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (6 November 1996)The Commission's annual report on monitoring the application of Community law, and in particular the opening sections on the situation sector by sector, provides information on the effectiveness of transposal:- general evaluations of the broad areas of Community policy (for example, internal market, social policy, agriculture, environment);- more specific information on infringement proceedings relating to the quality of the transposal (incorrect measures) or on the ineffective application of directives in specific cases.A more detailed view of the effectiveness of the various Community policies can be obtained from the Commission's other reports and publications, such as the General Report on the activities of the European Union, the annual economic report, the annual report on the single market, the report on employment, the annual agricultural report and the report on competition policy.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2487/96 by José VALVERDE LÓPEZ to the Commission. Monitoring the implementation of legislation
Date: 1996-09-25
Institutions: European Parliament, VALVERDE LOPEZ
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union, EEC Treaty, application of EU law, fine, infringement procedure (EU), sanction (EU)













EUR-Lex - 91996E2487 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2487

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2487/96 by José VALVERDE LÓPEZ to the Commission. Monitoring the implementation of legislation  


Official Journal C 083 , 14/03/1997 P. 0019 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2487/96 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (25 September 1996)Subject: Monitoring the implementation of legislationCan the Commission say what use has been made of Article 171 of the Treaty on sanctions for failure to comply with Community law?Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (11 December 1996)So far, the Commission has not asked the Court of Justice to impose payment of a lump sum or a penalty payment on a Member State in the course of Article 171 infringement proceedings. The guidelines which the Commission intends to follow are set out in a Memorandum on applying Article 171, published in the Official Journal. ((OJ C 242, 21.8.1996. ))
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2511/96 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Commission. Subsidizing of national airlines
Date: 1996-09-25
Institutions: BREYER, European Parliament
Subjects: State aid, aid for restructuring, air transport, competition, control of State aid, liberalisation of the market, transport company













EUR-Lex - 91996E2511 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2511

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2511/96 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Commission. Subsidizing of national airlines  


Official Journal C 083 , 14/03/1997 P. 0021 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2511/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (25 September 1996)Subject: Subsidizing of national airlines1. Can the Commission state why subsidies have been granted to national airlines (Air France and Iberia)?2. Is their any possibility of these airlines receiving further subsidies?3. How will the Commission deal with applications for subsidies from other EU airlines?4. What are the objective criteria for assessing additional applications for subsidies from other airlines?5. Will the Commission take steps to prevent further subsidies being paid to airlines? If so, what form will these measures take? If not, why are no suitable measures being taken?Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (14 November 1996)As the Honourable Member may know, any subsidies to airlines have been paid in and by Member States and not by the Community, and a general prohibition of state aid to airlines would be contrary to the EC Treaty.Following the adoption of the third liberalisation package for the aviation sector in 1992, the policy pursued by the Commission in the matter of state aids to airlines has been to accept, under strict conditions, aid for the restructuring of airlines which may have been incurring losses for several years, in order that the necessary measures can be taken for them to become viable in a more competitive environment. This policy has applied to several airlines over the years and not only to those mentioned in the Honourable Member's question.This policy will continue to be applied stringently when the liberalisation process is after 1 April 1997. Furthermore, under Commission guidelines adopted in 1994, airlines which have already received aid could only be allowed to receive further aid in circumstances that are proved to be 'exceptional, unforeseeable and external to the company'.The Commission refers to the Honourable Member to its communication ((Application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty and Article 61 of the EEA agreement to state aids in the aviation sector, OJ C 350, 10.12.1994. )) which explains in detail the policy followed by the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2510/96 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Council. Subsidizing of national airlines
Date: 1996-09-25
Institutions: BREYER, European Parliament
Subjects: State aid, air transport, control of State aid, transport company













EUR-Lex - 91996E2510 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2510

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2510/96 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Council. Subsidizing of national airlines  


Official Journal C 083 , 14/03/1997 P. 0020 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2510/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (25 September 1996)Subject: Subsidizing of national airlines1. Can the Council of Ministers state why subsidies have been granted to national airlines (Air France and Iberia)?2. Is there any possibility of these airlines receiving further subsidies?3. How will the Council deal with applications for subsidies from other EU airlines?4. What are the objective criteria for assessing additional applications for subsidies from other airlines?5. Will the Council take steps to prevent further subsidies being paid to airlines? If so, what form will these measures take? If not, why are no suitable measures being taken?Answer (17 January 1997)Responsibility for authorizing State aids, as laid down in Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty, lies mainly with the Commission. The full procedure and criteria as far as concerns State aids in the field of aviation is presented in the Commission guidelines on the application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty and Article 61 of the EEA agreemetn to State aids in the aviation sector ((OJ C 350, of 10 December 1994, p. 5. )).The Council has not been informed of any initiative from the Commission to change the legislation and the procedures applicable to State aids in the aviation sector.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2465/96 by Francisca SAUQUILLO PÉREZ DEL ARCO to the Council. Examination of the situation of children within the framework of the IGC
Date: 1996-09-25
Institutions: European Parliament, SAUQUILLO PEREZ DEL ARCO
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Convention on Human Rights, Treaty on European Union, UN convention, child protection, children's rights, competence of the Member States, intergovernmental conference (EU)













EUR-Lex - 91996E2465 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2465

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2465/96 by Francisca SAUQUILLO PÉREZ DEL ARCO to the Council. Examination of the situation of children within the framework of the IGC  


Official Journal C 072 , 07/03/1997 P. 0046 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2465/96 by Francisca Sauquillo Pérez del Arco (PSE) to the Council (25 September 1996)Subject: Examination of the situation of children within the framework of the IGCThe Treaty on European Union, which contains special provisions for certain sections of society, for example, the elderly, ethnic minorities and the disabled, contains no provisions for the protection of Europe's 120 million children, an increasing number of whom are in a particularly vulnerable situation.Will the situation of children be considered in the course of the IGC with a view to establishing a specific framework for protecting the rights of the child?Is the Council envisaging the possible inclusion within the common provisions of a reference to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted on 20 November 1989?Answer (16 December 1996)1. The Council is deeply committed to the respect of fundamental rights as provided for in Article F(2) of the Treaty on European Union and as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. Moreover it is fully conscious of the provisions of the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to which all Member States are signatories.2. However, the Honourable Member should note that this is mainly a matter for the Member States, notwithstanding some Community provisions such as the Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people at work ((OJ L 216, 20.8.1994. )).3. The Council cannot comment on the activities of the Intergovernmental Conference and the positions adopted by Member States there.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1846/96 of 25 September 1996 amending Regulation (EC) No 716/96 adopting exceptional support measures for the beef market in the United Kingdom
Date: 1996-09-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: United Kingdom, aid system, animal disease, beef, slaughter of animals, veterinary legislation













EUR-Lex - 31996R1846 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



31996R1846

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1846/96 of 25 September 1996 amending Regulation (EC) No 716/96 adopting exceptional support measures for the beef market in the United Kingdom  


Official Journal L 245 , 26/09/1996 P. 0009 - 0009 





COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1846/96 of 25 September 1996 amending Regulation (EC) No 716/96 adopting exceptional support measures for the beef market in the United Kingdom THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market in beef and veal (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1588/96 (2), and in particular Article 23 thereof,Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 716/96 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1512/96 (4), provides for exceptional support measures for the beef market in the United Kingdom, providing, in particular, for compensation for animals slaughtered under the scheme laid down in that Regulation; whereas the Community pays part of the cost for each animal purchased and destroyed; whereas, for technical reasons, there are very long delays between the rendering and the destruction of the animals; whereas the United Kingdom should therefore be paid in advance of 80 % after the animals concerned have been rendered;Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Beef and Veal,HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:Article 1 The following is added to the third subparagraph of Article 2 (1) of Regulation (EC) No 716/96:'An advance equal to 80 % of the Community contribution shall be paid after the animal concerned has been rendered in accordance with Article 1 (2).`Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.Done at Brussels, 25 September 1996.For the CommissionFranz FISCHLERMember of the Commission(1) OJ No L 148, 28. 6. 1968, p. 24.(2) OJ No L 206, 16. 8. 1996, p. 23.(3) OJ No L 99, 20. 4. 1996, p. 14.(4) OJ No L 189, 30. 8. 1996, p. 93.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2450/96 by Umberto BOSSI to the Council. Procedures for the accession of Padania to the European Union
Date: 1996-09-25
Institutions: BOSSI, European Parliament
Subjects: European treaties, Italy, accession to the European Union, economic development, intergovernmental conference (EU), regional law, regions of Italy













EUR-Lex - 91996E2450 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2450

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2450/96 by Umberto BOSSI to the Council. Procedures for the accession of Padania to the European Union  


Official Journal C 083 , 14/03/1997 P. 0015 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2450/96 by Umberto Bossi (ELDR) to the Council (25 September 1996)Subject: Procedures for the accession of Padania to the European UnionGiven that within the Italian State there are two profoundly different production systems - Padania which is the world's tenth to fifteenth most competitive economy, and the southern region which has a ranking of between 150 and 200 - and that these systems are linked by a rehabilitation network which the Rome Government has failed to use successfully to boost the development of the South, and which is now adding enormously to the public costs pressing upon Padania;Given that Italy cannot join the single currency, since this would have a dramatic impact on Padania's economy and would result in the breakup of the country;Given that the above situation inevitably means the introduction of two different currencies for the two productive systems, and the consequent independence of Padania;Given that time is pressing, and that 15 September 1996 will mark the Declaration of Independence in Venice and the birth of the Padana Federal Republic, with its own Provisional Government;Can the Council state what procedures are provided within the Community in the case of Padania, which is already part of a Member State, particularly as regards its accession to the Union, bearing in mind the firm resolve of that nation to play a leading role in the process of European integration, a resolve which is dictated by its history, its economy and its culture?Joint answer to Written Questions E-2448/96 and E-2450/96 (17 January 1997)The Treaty can be amended only following an inter-governmental conference which, as its name suggests, is a conference between Member States' governments.The Council as such is not qualified to reply to the questions put by the Honourable Members.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2452/96 by Gijs de VRIES to the Council. Asylum-seekers from former Yugoslavia
Date: 1996-09-25
Institutions: DE VRIES, European Parliament
Subjects: Germany, UNHCR, Yugoslavia, competence of the Member States, forced migration, refugee, return migration, right of asylum













EUR-Lex - 91996E2452 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2452

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2452/96 by Gijs de VRIES to the Council. Asylum-seekers from former Yugoslavia  


Official Journal C 105 , 03/04/1997 P. 0007 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2452/96 by Gijs de Vries (ELDR) to the Council (25 September 1996)Subject: Asylum-seekers from former YugoslaviaThe German government plans to repatriate refugees from former Yugoslavia. The Netherlands government fears that many of them will attempt to enter the countries bordering Germany.1. Have the Member States, which, in Article K.1 of the Treaty agreed to regard asylum policy as a matter of common interest, decided to pursue a common policy in this area, in accordance with UNHCR recommendations?2. Are they prepared to agree not to return any refugees to Kosovo until Serbia has adopted an amnesty law, without which repatriated refugees have grounds for fearing Serbian reprisals?Answer (13 February 1997)It is true that asylum policy is regarded as a matter of common interest. However, the people to whom the Honourable Member refers are not, as a general rule, asylum-seekers or refugees within the meaning of the Geneva Convention.Those displaced as a result of the crisis situation in former Yugoslavia have, until now, benefited from the temporary protection of their host States. Terminating such temporary protection and repatriating the people concerned is the responsibility of the individual States, which consult each other within the Council on the development of the situation and cooperate with the UNHCR with the aim of carrying out coordinated repatriation, having regard to the criteria laid down in the Dayton Agreement and the need to ensure safety and acceptable living conditions for each person concerned.The Member States are perfectly aware of the situation in Kosovo and are in consultation with each other on the subject. However, the decision on whether or not to return people is the responsibility of each Member State.